Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
 

On Apr 15, 7:45*am, wrote:
On Apr 15, 1:57*am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling,
Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer,
James C. Zachos

Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled
CO2,

Ludicrous speculation. *No such data exists.

You should read before you comment. The data exist.

Please see:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126

For supporting materal see:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1135

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
 

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:00 am, matt_sykes wrote:
[ . . . ][
Agricultural workers in greenhouses work with CO2 generally at 5000
ppm as a maximum recomended level so your 1000 is from some other
source, perhaps for ill or old people in hospital?

In San Diego two greenhouse workers died from CO2.
Port workers packing stuff in dry ice also died.
Now, CalOSHA keeps a close watch on CO2 concentrations
at workplaces.

Anyway, it is unlikely we will ever get to 1000 since plant growth
will explode.

How tragic! You actually expect a miracle that will
save us from our greenhouse gas emissions.

Simple logic say that if people die from Co2 that we will se a major die
off of people with emphazima and asthma.... The Canary in the cave
thing. As more die then production of co2 will drop and the strong will
survive, that is your Darwinism.

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
 

"Poetic Justice" wrote in message
...
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:00 am, matt_sykes wrote:
[ . . . ][
Agricultural workers in greenhouses work with CO2 generally at 5000
ppm as a maximum recomended level so your 1000 is from some other
source, perhaps for ill or old people in hospital?

In San Diego two greenhouse workers died from CO2.
Port workers packing stuff in dry ice also died.
Now, CalOSHA keeps a close watch on CO2 concentrations
at workplaces.

Anyway, it is unlikely we will ever get to 1000 since plant growth
will explode.

How tragic! You actually expect a miracle that will
save us from our greenhouse gas emissions.

Simple logic say that if people die from Co2 that we will se a major die
off of people with emphazima and asthma.... The Canary in the cave thing.
As more die then production of co2 will drop

ROFLMAO

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
 

On Apr 16, 12:00 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:44 pm, Fran wrote:





On Apr 15, 8:55 pm, matt_sykes wrote:

On Apr 15, 10:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling,
Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer,
James C. Zachos

Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled
CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity,
including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for
the range of climate states between glacial conditions and icefree
Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that
began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2
fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades,
barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet
similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on
Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change
suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to
at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from
possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target
may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured
and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester
carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief,
there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

Please see:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126

For supporting materal see:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1135

For an article in the popular press, please see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...techange.carbo....

500 to 2000 seems pretty OK since this is what it has been since the
Jurassic (when modern animals and plants evolved)-

Nah ah ...

Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: According to occupational exposure and
controlled atmosphere research into CO2 toxicology, CO2 is hazardous
via direct toxicity at levels above 5%, concentrations not encountered
in nature [except perhaps at or near an active volcano or at water-
logged soils]. At these high levels there is risk of death from carbon
dioxide poisoning. At lower levels there may health effects and there
certainly are complaints of exposure at lower levels.

In the preceding section of this article, at CO2 POISONING SYMPTOMS we
discussed symptoms of carbon dioxide exposure. On specific
individuals, the effects of exposure to elevated levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) vary by individual and with exposure level, and exposure
duration, ranging from drowsiness (perhaps at levels over 1000 ppm
continuous exposure) to the toxic effects listed just above.

...

The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum
concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous
exposure.
ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard
of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below
1000ppm.

http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agricultural workers in greenhouses work with CO2 generally at 5000
ppm as a maximum recomended level so your 1000 is from some other
source, perhaps for ill or old people in hospital?


No ... check the links.

Here's something else:

|||
In 1986, a tremendous explosion of CO2 from the lake Nyos, West of
Cameroon, killed more than 1700 people and livestock up to 25 km away.
The dissolved CO2 is seeping from springs beneath the lake and is
trapped in deep water by the high hydrostatic pressure.



http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mhalb/ny...exdisaster.htm


THE AUGUST 12 EXPULSION OF DEADLY CO2
The CO2-rich cloud was expelled rapidly from the southern floor of
Lake Nyos. It rose as a jet with a speed of about 100 km per hour. The
cloud quickly enveloped houses within the crater that were 120 meters
above the shoreline of the lake. Because CO2 is about 1.5 times the
density of air, the gaseous mass hugged the ground surface and
descended down valleys along the north side of the crater. The deadly
cloud was about 50 meters thick and it advanced downslope at a rate of
20 to 50 km per hour. This deadly mist persisted in a concentrated
form over a distance of 23 km, bringing sudden death to the villages
of Nyos, Kam, Cha, and Subum

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volc...work/Nyos.html


Now plainly, the concentrations here were far higher than what we are
talking about, but it underlines the fact that CO2 like most things we
humans need is needed in only modest amounts.

Anyway, it is unlikely we will ever get to 1000 since plant growth
will explode

You're probably right because 'we' (i.e you and I and the vast
majority of those able to read this right now) won't be alive when CO2
reaches 1000 PPM, which probably won't occur this side of 2096. At
least, one would hope so.

Nevertheless, it's far from impossible. And as I said, the plant
growth that might result wouldn't necessarily be of great use to us,
except perhaps as a carbon sink.

1000 PPM approximates the environment of a seriously stuffy room.
People get drowsy and inattentive. If you want the people of the
future to live in a world like that and have no place to escape to
fresh air along with persistent stfling heat and humidity then you
plainly have a different vision of human wellbeing than I do.

Fran

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
 

"chemist" wrote
But the Earth is showing signs of Cooling whilst Fossil CO2 is going
through the roof .

And the Non-Chemist once again shows himself to be a liar.


2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer

January 16, 2008


The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this century,
NASA
scientists announced today.

Climatologists at the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS)
in
New York used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite
measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for
earlier
years to construct a record of global average temperatures going back for
over a
century.

The GISS analysis has 1934, 1998 and 2005 tied as the warmest years in the
United States (with 2005 being the warmest globally).

The eight warmest years globally in the past century have all occurred since
1998, and the 14 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.

The greatest observed warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, which
experienced
a record sea ice melt this summer, opening up the fabled Northwest Passage
for
the first time.

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong
warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to
the
effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said NASA GISS Director
James
E. Hansen.

A minor flaw in the GISS record discovered last year did not affect this
analysis, the scientists noted.

Hansen says that warming can be expected to continue, with another record
warm
year coming soon, though it is unlikely to be 2008.

"Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly
exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the
time of
the next El Nino , because of the background warming trend attributable to
continuing increases of greenhouse gases," Hansen said.

El Nino tends to have a warming effect on temperatures in many areas, while
the
volcanic ash that an eruption spews into the air has a cooling effect.

While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
proceed
constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
 

"matt_sykes" wrote
Anyway, it is unlikely we will ever get to 1000 since plant growth
will explode.

Plant response to CO2 is sublinear.

Question: What evidence do you have of an ever increasing superlinear
response (explosion).

Answer: No evidence at all.
Answer: No theory at all.

And that makes you a Lying...
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
 

Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled
CO2,


wrote
Ludicrous speculation. No such data exists.

Actually it's existed for the last 100 years ever since it was first
computed by Svante Arrhenius...

And that makes you a.....

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

Textbook Strawman: Example --- Climate Change mitigation policies
 

"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 10:22 am, Addinall wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:30 am, Fran wrote:





On Apr 24, 7:02 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

wrote:
"addinall" wrote

Well given the 16 times a minute you breath, you exhale a mixture
of gasses that contains about 5%CO2. 7% down in our lungs.
Stop breathing Fran. You're ****ing up the planet.

Mouth breathers like Addinall might think that breathing is the source
of
the earth'sCO2. But in fact exhailedCO2isCO2that was recently acquired
by the uptake ofCO2from the atmosphere by plants. Hence breathing is
part
of a cycle ofCO2exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere.

AtmosphericCO2levels are increasing by about 5 billion tonnes per year
as a result of the burning of huge quantities of coal and oil.

The example from Mr Addinall above is a textbook 'strawman' strategy.
A strawman strategy is one in which some tries to 'win' and argument
by redefining the terms of the argument to create an absurdity or
contradiction. Just as a caricature of a public figure involves
accentuating one of his most visible attributes, typically, the user
of the strawman strategy makes a caricature of the opponent's position
by distorting the relationships between components, exaggerating or
changing the significance of one of the elements.

Now, that was pure straw. Comrade Fran, when faced with facts,
normally
hides under a number of arguments by fallacy; and this is just another
attempt at hiding the fact that she argues from a knowledge base less
than appropriate for the discussions she joins.


Or so you like to claim.

You shouldn't be using these strawman arguments Comrade Flan. They don't get
too far with me I can tell you.

Textbook Strawman: Example --- Climate Change mitigation policies
 

On Apr 25, 4:16*pm, "Green Lantern" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Apr 25, 10:22 am, Addinall wrote:





On Apr 24, 11:30 am, Fran wrote:

On Apr 24, 7:02 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

wrote:
"addinall" wrote

Well given the 16 times a minute you breath, you exhale a mixture
of gasses that contains about 5%CO2. 7% down in our lungs.
Stop breathing Fran. You're ****ing up the planet.

Mouth breathers like Addinall might think that breathing is the source
of
the earth'sCO2. But in fact exhailedCO2isCO2that was recently acquired
by the uptake ofCO2from the atmosphere by plants. Hence breathing is
part
of a cycle ofCO2exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere.

AtmosphericCO2levels are increasing by about 5 billion tonnes per year
as a result of the burning of huge quantities of coal and oil.

The example from Mr Addinall above is a textbook 'strawman' strategy.
A strawman strategy is one in which some tries to 'win' and argument
by redefining the terms of the argument to create an absurdity or
contradiction. Just as a caricature of a public figure involves
accentuating one of his most visible attributes, typically, the user
of the strawman strategy makes a caricature of the opponent's position
by distorting the relationships between components, exaggerating or
changing the significance of one of the elements.

Now, that was pure straw. Comrade Fran, when faced with facts,
normally
hides under a number of arguments by fallacy; and this is just another
attempt at hiding the fact that she argues from a knowledge base less
than appropriate for the discussions she joins.

Or so you like to claim.

You shouldn't be using these strawman arguments Comrade Fran.

And this is an example of 'begging the question' which is something
you're very fond of.

They don't get too far with me I can tell you

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Fran